TUB

BIBLIOTHECA SACRA.

AnTIOLE I.

CLEMENS ROMANUS: AN APOLOGETICAL STUDY.

BY DB. D. W. 8IlIlON, BEBLIN, PBU88U .•

L LIFE AND EPISTLE OF CLEMENT OF ROME.

§ 1. Life of Clement.

ALL that can be said, with any show of probability, regarding tho life of Clement, is, that he was acquainted with and esteemed by the apostle Paul, as we learn from Philippians iv. 3; that he lived and labored, for a time, at Philippi; tha.t he became the third bishop of Rome, and held that office after Linus, between A. D. 92 and 101; that he wrote the First Epistle to the church at Corint.h, in the name of the church at Rome; and that he was held in uni· versal esteem by the Christians of his day. No confidence whatever can be placed in the romantic account of bill descent, conversion, labors, and sufferings given by the Clementine Homilies and other writings of the class. Va­rious deductions, too, from expressions of bis own, as for elaDIple that he was a Jew by birth (vid. cc. 4,31,,55), are equally uncertain.

§ 2. ne Gera»iMne88 of Jhe First Epistle.

That Clement wrote an epistle to the Corinthians seems 1IIldeniable. The only questions are: Is the present E"'p'istle

VOL. XXII. No. 87.-JvLY. 1865. -'5. Digitized by Google

854: CLlWENS ROHANU8. . [July,

to the Corinthians that epistle? And do we possess it in an authentic shape? Both these questions are susceptible of so satisfactory an answer that Thiersch felt justified in say­ing, It with the exception of the books of the primary Canon (Urkanon), no ancient work is so well accredited as this"; words which are quoted with approval even by Hilgenfeld.1

The first supposed reference to it has been discovered in the Epistle of Polycarp; but the coincidences noted by Hefele do not seem to us to have much weight. The testi­mony, however, of Irenaeus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origeo, Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Jerome, and other later writers, can only be deemed inadequate by those who either have a preconceived theory to serve, or make unreasonable claims on historical evidence. Do we possess the epistle now in its original form? Several writers, as for example, Jer. Bignon, Ed. Bernard, Clericus, Mosheim, have maintained that parts of the epistle are spurious; but their subjective reasons do not stand ground against the objective evidence to the contrary and the arguments of Grotius, Wotton, and many others.

§ 3. JJ;arly Opinions regarding Clement af!td his Epistle. The epistle, as well as its author, was held in high esteem

by the ancient church. Clemens Alexandrinus even styles Clement an apostle. Irenaeus speaks of the epistle as [/C4-

JlC/JTaT'17 'Ypa4n]; Eusebius, as JWfO;lI."I ore ml ';:tavJI4ula; to its having been publicly read in churches on Sunday, testi­mony is borne by Dionysius of Corinth, Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius. Several modern writers, too, have bestowed high 'encomiums on its style. Some passages have a flow and breadth worthy of 0.11 recognition; but, like the other productions of the so·called apostolic Fathers, the unity of the epistle is more that of an exhortation than of a treatise.

As the second epistle that bears Clement's name is acknowledged to be spurious, no use has been made of it in the course of the present inquiry.1I

1 See Hilgenfeld, II Die Apostollschen Viter, etc." I The prolegomena to Dr. Herele's volnable edition. of the NOBto1Ic .PIICben

Digitized by GOog Le I

1866.]

II. CONTENTS 01' THE FmsT EPISTLE TO THE (JOBnIlTlUANS.

From some cause or other, violent discussions had arisen iu the church of Corinth, and this letter was written, in the name and at the instance of the church of Rome, to the church of Corinth, to exhort to the termination of a state of things beth opposed to the good name of the Corinth­ian Christians and prejudicial to the cause of the Christian religiou in general. The supposition that they were a revival of the disputes referred to in Paul's First Epistle to the· Corinthians, ch. iii., would seem to be unsustained by CIel:!lent's words in c.47. Clement himself gives no par­ticulars regarding the cause of the quarrel. A.D that can be gathered from the nature of his exhortations is, that there were some, one or two in particular, who had contentiously risen in opposition to, and caused the removal of, officers of the church, who had been duly elected by the people and had discharged the duties of their position blamelessly (c. 44).1 The exhortations bearing on this state of things

ad Prot Dr. Bi1genCeld's work, "Die Apostolisehen Vitcr, etc.," contain an uhaaative examination of the arguments for and against the points touched 1IJIOII in the foregoing outline.

1 Various views have been taken of the disturbances which gave rise to the preleDt epistle. Rothe and Thicnch think it was a dispute about the epiBC»­pile; Schenkel, a revival of the controversy referred to by Paul in his Epistle 10 the Corinthians; Hilgenfe1d thinks the disturbers were men who made pre­teuion 10 peculinr wisdom and spirituality, and on that ground were haughty ad indisposed to anbmit to any anthority, however reasonable. Much that tho Jat..mentioned writer advances is quite to the point, but he fails to explain emnl features. To-our mind, the nearest approach to an explanation of the IIIIire matter is fnrn1ahed by disputes that have repearedly occurred in Congre­pIional churches.

8em'Il points seem directly to warrant the anppoaition that tho constitution eI the Corinthian church was essentially identical with that of tho Independent chmdJea of the present day: 1. Tho words """.u301C1'/G'",",f '"if lICIChf/IT{IU "''''"'''

whieh imply the co-opcration of tho church to an extent allowed by none but ladependents. That there was not a complete identity we allow; but why 1 -....e the first churches were still in the hands of inspired apostles, or of th080 whom they had appointed. If tho apostles were to appear again, Independents ~ concede them the same pri,·ilege. 2. The word 4",o/J4A-P.'''. lIow could - have been a casting out, a setting aside, a forced resignation, if the dIIuth had uot had a democratie constitution! It is worthy too of note, that .

Digitized by Goog Ie

866 [July,

constitute the ponnecting link· of the Epistle; bat CleJheut takes occasion to inculcate general principles, and to ad­duce high examples, by the way. This circumstance, while giving it a digressive charaoter, adds to its interest, and fur­nishes an insight into the mind both of Clement and the church of his day. Any attempt to introduqe a precise method miscarries, owing to passages like those which treat of the resurrection, in cc. 24 to 26. The train of thought is briefly the following. In the first three chapters he describes the good name previously possessed by the Cor-

Clement does not bIame the lI:rrOfJ&MfUl in itself, but merely the II:rrofjU.,A.., .,.obs AfiTOUmuiJIlTlt.S G.p.l,.,.1fT'-s T" 1rol,.,.~i'l' XpIITTOU; not that they had required and efFected the resignation, but that they had driven away men who Iutd aerved the 'flock of Christ blamelcssly. 3. Clement speaks throughout 113 to brethren - to erring and faulty brethren, - not ex catkdra; which is mos' natural 0J1 the supposition we are supporting. 4. His references to the revCl\o ence and obedience due to the i'lriutto1rOI or 'lrpflT{J{,npol aro just snch 88 might and do occur in connection with Congregationalists, bm are not' so fully in harmony with other theorics.

We will'now describe snch a dispnte: It not infrequently happens that amo .. the members arc some who lay great stress on the doctrine of election; who are thoroughly convinced of their own election; who in consequence arc proud and overbearing, especially in their language; whose high pretensions are not COD­

finned by corresponding deeds; who elaim to have a higher holiness and wisdom, while in reality they arc very narrow, and often slaves to the flesh; who con­demn every one not believing exactly what and as they do; and who on the least occasion go about stirring up mischief. These members arc especially haril on the 'lrpfufj6TEPOI if they do not give the prominence to their favorite theme which they decm necessary; are particularly indignant if he exhort them to charity and good works; easily forget all respect and order, nil the kindness the]' once showed and always owed; and not seldom suceeed in driving away the 1'obr tul",. 1rPOU'Xo~as Tc\ 3&pa .,.;js 11rurttorljr. > '

If a sistcr church were to interfere, as sometimes happens, its warnings and exhortations would not be in an ex cath£dra tone; it would admonish to <t>1A~E"i ... in the wider sense, towards the "PfUfjUTfPOI; it would remind the distnrbers of the true characteristies of the elect; would exhort to hnmility, penitence, su'b­mission to God; wocl.d say" we arc all members of Christ," and it is bctrer for you to go away than to disturb and rend tho church, and 80 forth.

If this picturo be compared with the hints, warnings, and exhortations of Clement, numerous points of coincidence will be discoycrcd. In fact, whne sketching from tho ehurch life of tho present day, we have in most instanees quoted Clement's own words. Some such quarrel, therefore, may have giTe1l rise to tho present epistle. Tho moro prominent features are contained in tho following passages: ee. 35, and 12. 38. 46. 49. 47. 48. 51. 54. 57. 3. 29.

• Digitized by Goog Ie

1865.] a~1

inthian community, a.nd the sad state into which it bad now faUen. Chapters foul' to six adduce various older and more recent examples of the evil effeots produced by that qual'. relsome and envious disposition (~Mw) which had been at work among them. Next follows an exhortation to peni­tence, sustained by assuranaes of God's readioess to forgive, and 1\ referenoe to the examples of Enoch, N oab, Abraham, Lot,and Rahab,who found favor with God, through opposed conduct, through faith, obedience, hospitality (cc. 7 - 12). He then especially enjoins humility, and entreats the Corinthians to obey God rather than the authors of the sedition, to adhere to those who love peace in reality and not merely in appearance (cc. 13 -15) i seeing that Christ (0. 16), the saints, especially J.ob, lIoSGS (c. 17), and Da­vid have 8et us an example of this virtue (c. 18). Imi. tating them, therefore, we ought to seek peace (c. 19), especially as the harmony of the world, and the glori­ous order of nature show that it is loved by God (c. 20). If we follow evil-doers rather than God, the divine bles. sings will be a source of condemnation (c. 21). To such conduct Christ exhorts us by his Spirit in the Old Testa­ment (0.22). God will accept those who come to him with aimplicity of mind·; but at the coming of Christ all shall be punished who are of a doubtful spirit and are pllffed up by God's giorious gifts (c. 23). Chapters twenty·four to twenty. BeVen contain a digression on the resurrection, apparently auggested by the idea of Christ's second coming. Inasmuch ae God sees all things, we ought to eschew sio, and approach him with sanctity of heart (c. 29). Seeing that we are the portion of the Holy One, we should seek what is holy, put on concord, abstain from quarrels, and se~k to justify ourselves rather by works than words (e. 30) j our praise should be from God, and not from ourselves. Such alone, and not the bold and proud, are blessed of God. For these reasons were the lathers accepted by God, though, as they owed all to the grace of God, so too we are justified, not by any wisdom or piety or works of our own, which we may perform in sanctity

Digitized by Goog Ie

-~

~58 CLEIIENS BOJWro8. [JolT,

of hea:t, but by that faith by whkhGod hM jUltijied all frtYIII eM begiMing (c. 32). But shall we therefore cease from good works? No, for God sets us an example thereof (c. 33). On the contrary, the reward of good works with God is great, and we shall obtain it by doing justly, walking in the way of truth, and renouncing all iniquity (cc. 84. 35). Here Clement . sets forth in the strongest terms how it ia through Christ, the brightness of God'i glory, tllat we attain salvation and every blessing (c. 36). He is our Head, we are members of his body; we ought, therefore, like good soldiers and members, each to seek the other's. good· (cc. 37. 38). Seeing that all gifts are from God, we have no ground for being puffed up. Let us then observe the order instituted in the church; for, as under the old economy, so under the new, certain offi­cers have been appointed for certain dffices: Christ sent the apostles, and the apostles set over us overseers and deacons (cc. 39 - 42). It is not a new thing that opposition should arise against the ·constituted authorities, for even Moses had to allay a strife of the kind (c. 43). The apos­tles foresaw that dissensions would arise, and took measul"88 accordingly; and it is wrong to set aside presbytel'8 who have been duly elected and h~ve discharged their functions blamelessly (c. 44). If you study the scriptures, the ora­cles of the Spirit, you will find that formerly it was the wicked alone who vexed the righteous, whom God glorified with exceeding glory. To these latter, to the just, we ought to cleave; they are the elect of God; but woe to those who rend the one body of Christ (c. 47). Your present dissensions are worse than those rebuked by Paul in his divinely inspired Epistle. Put away these things, then, quickly, return .to the Lord, and walk again as before, remembering that to· be useful to the brethren is more no­ble than the best gifts (cc. 48 - 49). Pray, then, that ye may Jive in charity (c. 50); and let the disturbers confess their sins (c. 51); for such confession is required by God. Con­sider how Moses loved Israel, how he was ready rather to perish himself than to see his people perish (c. 53). He,

• • Digitized by Goog Ie

1866,] CLEIIINS BOlUNU8. 869

therefore, who has true love will rather give way antt leave, than disturb the peace of the church (c. 54). With a gene­ral exhortation to submission, and the usual beuediction, the epistle closes.

IlL THE DOCTRINAL VIEWS OF CLEJIENT.

§ 4. General Character. "

The Epistle of Clement shares the general character of the other writings commonly ascribed to his age - it attempts no formal treatment of doctrine as such; what of doctrine it contains is in the way of allusion, iii advanced for a directly practical purpose, and not for its own sake. This is even more completely the case with Clement than with Ignatius or Barnabas. His references to what he deemed facts or con­ditions of spiritual life and redemption are plain enough; but his treatment of them is either not at all, or very slightly doctrinal. By this circumstance our doctrinal deductions must be guided. We must be on our guard against pres­ling his language in anyone direction, whether for or against the orthodox system. .At the same time, in view of the general character of his mind and of the position he occupied (to which ,we shall 'refer more fully hereafter), we must also guard against treating his words too lightly. We must allow that he felt in a broad manner the force of the terms he uses, even if we deny them to be the outBow of distinct doctrinal reBection. For though, as a man of a thoroughly practical turn, and living at a stage of the history of Christ~nity when there had as yet no palpable DeCessity arisen for a philosophical discussion of its doc­trines, he advances his thoughts without scientific aim or precision, the CUltll'l'6, harmony, and masculine good sense which mark his epistle, force us to suppose that he, at aU events, understood what he was about, and felt the weight of what he taught. Nor may we forget that, though the immediate successors of the apostles found no necessity for, IDd evinced no in~lioation to, theological speculation as

"Digitized by Google

860 CLDIEl'fS R01rUNU9. [July,

Bll':h, the fact of their standing in practical antagonism to Judaism on the one hand, and heathenism on the other, would compel them to weigh well the substance of the thoughts and the nature of the facts which they advanced, even where ~here was an absence of formal precision. Guided by these considerations, we will now examine the main doctrinal features of the Epistle of Clement .

. § 5. Its Represeni'ations of the Person of Cllrist.

Clement's references to the person of Christ ,may be classed under t4ree rubrics: those which affect,

1. His relation to God, 2. His personal character and endowments, 3. His relation to men. 1. The references to Christ's relation to God. The most important passage bearing on Chri3t's relation to

God is contained in the thirty.sixth chapter. Translated, it runs as follows: "This is the way, beloved, in which we found our salvation, Jesus Christ, the High Priest of our offerings, the protector and helper of our weakness. Through him we gaze up to the heights of the heavens i through him we look as in a mirror on his [God's] multless and most excel­lent countenance i through him the eyes of our heart are opened; through him our stupid and darkened under­standing shoots up into his wonderful light i through bim the Lord willed that we should taste of immortal knowledge; who being the brightness of his majesty is by so much greater than the angels as he hath inherited a more excel­lent name. For it is written thus: 4 He who maketh his angels spirits and his ministers flames of fire'; but concern­ing the Son, the Lord spake on this wise, 4 thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee; ask of me and I will gi~e thee nations for thine inheritance and the ends or' the earth for thy possession.' And again he saith to him: 4 Sit at my right hand till I make thine enemies thy (ootstoo).' Who then are the enemies? The wicked and those who oppose the will of God." The most weighty portion of

Digitized by Goog Ie

l$GLJ

this remarkable passage is identioal with part of the first ohapter of the Epi8tle to the Hebrews, q,nd is, in all prob&. bility, a quotation frOJll it. For our presen.t purpose, how. ever, it is a matter of indifference whether CleIl1ent be supposed to be quoting or not. Nor is it of consequence to justify his use and applica.tiot;!. of the passages from the Old Testament interwovell with hie own words. All w" have to do with, is his own conception of Christ., conveyed through the medium of quotation, or in his own language, as the case may be. Jesus Christ is p.e'~0)" brtEMv, 'TO ~f14 ~ JWYQ,"Ma~ of God, Son of God, begotten by God, and his enemies. are the enemies of God.

a.. Christ is greater than the angels. In c. 34 he exhorts the Corinthians to "consider the entire multitude of the aBgels of God, how they do his will"; and in c. 29 he represents the boundaries of the nations as fixed" according to the number of the angels of God"; from which it tvould appear tbr.t he deemed them to be in some way superior to men', to stand nearer to God. And yet Christ is greater than the angels, greater in the measure in which he baa iDherited a more excenent name than they. But what other more excellent name can there be than that of angel, • term designating a very high, nay the very highest, order of created beings? The &nswer is given by Clement in the following words, quoted from Psalm ii, I'thou art my Son."

b. Christ is God's Son, begotten by God. Angels, though higher than men, are yet still but servants; Christ is, by contrast, Son. What precise significance Clement attaqhed to this term might be difficult to unfold, but we may be aided by the following considerations: It cannot designate a merely moral sonship, moml unity. If Christ had merely been, in Clement'a eltimate, a perfectly pure man, who for Iris eminent godliness was designated Son of God, why ~uld be place him. above the angels? It is true he Ipproves, in c. 39, of the expression from Job iv. : "he charges his angels with folly i" but that he understood it

VOL. XXII. No. S7. .6 Digitized by Google

862 [July,

in an hyperboJical sense, and not as implying actual BiD, is evident both from the words tltyttDJI ~'11, in the eame chapter, and from the praise ~estowed on them in c. M, where he contrasts them with men, and sets them before men as an example of obedience and harmony. Fnrther, the employment of the word ryerylwqICo., "I have begotten thee." However indisposed we may be to press such a word as this, we can scarcely avoid supposing that Clement must have felt, to some extent, its force. Concerning man, in c. 33, he speaks, most distinctly, as made, 'lrot.r}aO'Jp.EP, w'Na­(TW; and in the passage above referred to, in c. 39, angels are ranked with the rest of creation; the sole difference between them and men being their purity and obedience. Conjoining, then, the two words tI~ and ryerya"",m, and bearing in mind the considerations just advanced, we are forced to conclude that Clement, as it were spontaneously, if not with- a full comprehension of what he was doing, placed Christ in, what we may term, a blood.relationship to God, such as pertains to no creature, not even to that "most exceUent creature, man" (c. 83), nor to that still higher creature, the angel. It is very improbable that Clement had any notion whatever of the eternal generation of the Son, which was subsequently based upon, if not deduced from, . the words Ery0 tn7f'epov ryeryO"'1m (Te,l though some writers have maintained it.

c. We may further notice, also, the expre8Bion 1Cf1CMJpaP6. ptlJlmI in connection with Son. Christ has inherited the name - the name which "indicates the nature, the name of Son, Son of God, born, not merely made. That which we inherit is ours by right, is ours by natural relationship; and to predicate of Christ a natural relationship to God of this kind, what is it but to make him divine?

d. There are still three remarkable phrases to be noticed in this passage: In Christ we look upon God's faultleaa countenance; we, who are ourselves the impression of the

1 See Origen; and, in modern times, Treftie10n the "EWnla1 Sonahip," .. Clark on Lake i. 14.

Digitized by Goog Ie

/

1865.J

image of God (c. 83), see in Christ God's faultless and most excellent face, i. e. the perfect expression of the inmost euence of God.

Again, he is the df1l'GVytl4J14 'f1j~ p.rt~ Girrov. Man ia the " character (')(.GfH'1CT:"Jp) of his image," i. e. of Christ: Christ is the /I bright reflection of his majesty." Clement seems really to have sought out the strongest terms ·he could find, in order to express how fully Christ represents God to us, without exactly styling him God.

And lastly, we read that the enemies of Christ ate the enemies of God, which enemies God promises to bring into IUbjection to Christ. This is a. further identification of Chritt and God, which, taken together with the entire pas­sage, must be allowed to be weighty. In short, it is impos­sible to examine this thirty-sixth chapter without acknowl­edging that whatever stress may be laid on particular terms, Clement felt no hesitation in putting Christ into a position so close to God, that he only failed to style him • God and divine. He has interwoven With his own words the strongest expressions from (probably) the Epistle to the Hebrews, indicating, by the fact of selection, that it was distinctly his design to set forth Christ with the utmost possible glory short of absolute identification with God himsel£

The remaining clauses of this chapter we shall advert to in another oonnection.

e_ The next passage that claims notice is the somewhat obscure one in the sixteenth chapter: "The sceptre of the majesty of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, did not come with pomp and boastings, nor with arrogance, although it was in his power, but in lowliness of mind." From the use here of the impersonal term /I sceptre," it might be concluded that Christ stood to God in the relation of a mere instrument. At first sight it seems to be employed in analogy to the word /I rod," in Isaiah x. 5: /I Ah I the Assyrian, the rod of mine anger"; that as the Assyrian was God's rod, so Christ is the sceptre of his majesty. But apart from the

_ Digitized by Goog Ie •

8" [July,

iwmity of sucb" use in this oooneotion, there are several positive grolloda against it: (1) There is no instance in'ille Old Testament, on which Clement greatly leans, and from which he evidently deri·ved the figure, in which a creature is' called the" sceptre of God"; ,aod that for a very natu­ral reason. Sceptre is the permanent, distinotive symbol of regal authori~ and power, in their totality. Anothel' may be a monarch's sword, or rod, or right hand, but not; his sceptre, without having, de facto, the monarch's own power, without beiDg, so far as possible, the monarch him­self. In the Old Testament to take away the sceptre, is to reduce the holder thereof to'the raDk of subject from that of ruler. For example, in Zeoh. x. 11 we read (, the sceptre of Egypt passes away."

(2) Men who are God's "rod" or" sword" or other in­strument, are so designated in virtue of some one particular work or office intrusted to them fOO" a particular time J whereas Christ is spoken of here as U sceptre," indepen.-

• dently of any partioular work, as though it were his natural, permanent position. And he who was and is the sceptre comes to redeem, humbling himself by undertaking hi. mission in the form of a servant. The dignity of God's messengers consists precisely in their being his messen.­gers, whatever may be the outward circumstances of their activity. The fact that Ohrist" might hav~ come in pomp and dignity," and that his not coming thus was an humili. tion, implies elearly tb"t he had a dignity arising from the sceptre, apa.rt from even so glorious a mission as that of redemption.

The term has also been explained in analogy to ~ aKIfJ'lr'Tpoll in c. 31, and alCYrtrrptlp in c. 82. These words are there equivalent to 4>6">..'1, as in several passages of the Old Testament, .,~~ signifies tribus. And as in c. 29 J &cob, to whom pertained the WEJt&a"f1'lM'PW, that is, from whom the twelve tribes, or altfrrrrpa, came, is called God's heri~ age, so Christ too is called God's atr3J'lr'TpoJl, or heritage. Were this analogy admissible at all, the idea would haTe to

Digitized by Google' •

l

1814.] CLBHBNS ROHANUS. 365

be considerably modified in view of the words of c. 32, where the derivation of the Lord Jesus from the flesh is a4duced as one of God's marvellous gifts. Plainly, if an lIonor were conferred on God's heritage Israel, by the mere casual descent of Christ; aud if, at the same time, Clement meant to represent Christ as God's heritage in employing the word (l'ttfyrrTpov, it must be in an extraordinary sense. Israel was privileged above all men, was God's son; and yet he is honored by the mere fleshly descent of Christ: Christ must then, surely, be God's Son, God's heritage, in aa absolute sense. We are thus, by another route, led to a conception oCChrist 88 lofty as could be desired, short of styling him God. But it is very unlikely that Olernent • should have employed the terms in this sense. Either his thought would have been similar to that just expound~d, and that is very improbable, or he would have spoken with a confusedness which the general tone of his epistle does not warrant us in attributing to him. The most natural ex­planation is the one suggested by a preceding remark, that "sceptre" is" the e8sential, permaftent symbol of regal power and authority. Olement viewed Christ, accordingly, 88 the personal symbol, vehicle, organ, embodiment, repre­sentative of the majesty and authority of God, without "hom God can no more be truly thought of, than a monarch withont sceptre. Such a conception would be quite in harmony with the representations of the New Testament; for exaDiple, with Col. i. 16: "By him were all things created." If, then, Olement held Christ to be clothed with divine regal power, it is quite intelligible that he should have been able to appear in pomp; that his dignity was not derived from his mission; that. he could humble himself in the manner described. We have here, in another inde­pendent form, the same thought 88 is expressed in Phili~ pians ii. 6 - 8 : "who being in the form of God humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." f. The ne"t point bearing upon Ohrist's relation to the

Digitized by Goog Ie

866 [Jo11,

Father, is Clement's use of the word ""~, as a desigriatioD of Christ as well as God. It occurs in a great variety of oon­nections. As a general rule, it is true, he uses the term &a'IT&T7J~ of God, and never applies it to Christ; which might seem to imply that ""P~ was a mere title of office, or was used loosely, as we use master, lord. But a more careful examination sho.,s that he uses Jaipl.O~ and &a'IT~ iniar­changeably of God, and that consequently, in view especially of other circumstances, his application of ""pl.O~ to Christ ·is surprising, save on one supposition. That he draws no such precise distinction between the two words is sufficiently evident from cc. 33, 53, and 54, among many others. In

• o. 33, we read cS Bet1'7T'&~ /vyaUJ,Q.Taf, brl 'TO~ lfl'YOw amoV ; and he subsequently says, plainly referring to the same

b· t" If • \ '].v , N 'th su ~ec , 0 ""pUJ~, t:P'Y0'~ eavrOJf "(J(1'p.1'JrT~, ~""aP"1' ow, el er &a'lT6T1'J~ and ""p~ are to Clement identical in force and meaning, or, supposing Christ to be tdJpUJ~, that creative activity which in the one case is predicated of God, is predicated in the other of Christ.

Again, in c. 54, also, ""p~ is either used of God, or th& earth and its fulness are said to be Christ's; which would be a plain transference of one of God's main characteristics to Christ. Further, the identity of ""~ and Bea'ITo~ is clear from a comparison of cc, 36 and 53. In the former, quoting the Old Testament, he says, et7T'E'JI cS &O"'R'~; whereas in the latter, quoting from the same source, he says, Et7T'E'JI cS ""pl.O~. It is, lastly, sustained by the circumstance that, in introducing his quotations from the Old Testament and in speaking himself of God, he generally, though, as we have shown, not invariably, uses &~ (cc. 24, 33, 36, 40). If he had any definite reason at all for this procedure, it was a desire to secure. variety of expression; for, with bis general tendencies, it is exceedingly unlikely that he meant to be more accurate than the Old Testament. Nor have we any reason for thinking that &a'lT6'T1J~ was required by the usage of the time.

Now this application of the same term to Christ as is

Digitized by Goog Ie

CLEMBN8 BOJWntS. 861

applied to God in the Old Testament, which Clement deemed iDapired" is of itself striking enough; but especially so when the two are designated ,w~ almost in the same breath, as in cc. 13 and 16. From the" Martyrium Poly­carpi," c. 8, where Polycarp is represented as refusing to eay ,w~ 1Caicr4P, it would appear that, by the Christian church of that day, ,wp~ was regarded as, at aU events to some extent, 'a distinctive title of Christ, a title indicative of his divine dignity. Taking this circumstance in con­nection with Clement's usage and the usage of the Old Testament, whose authority he recognized, divine dignity would appear to be ascribed to Christ.

There is a further inoidental identification of God and Christ in c. 2, where we read, "content with the viaticum of God, and giving diligent heed to his words ••••• and his [God's] sufferings were before your eyes." That Clement here had in view the sufferings of Christ, there can surely-be no question; if so, is it not perfectly obvious that., even if in no precisely formulated shape, he must have 'con­nected Clirist with God much as the orthodox church has always done? In aU ages it has been common, in l\ popular way, to say interchangeably, "God has suffered," "Christl has suffered"; but solely because Christ was believed to be 80 one with God that what he did ,vas done by God.

Other passages, as for example the doxologies in cc. 20, 50, 58, 59, might be adduced under this rubric, which, though not very important by themselves, aU point in the direction of the clearer declarations just discussed.l

2. Christ's pre-existence, character, and endowments. a. The existence of Christ prior to his appearance on

earth is directly implied in c. 22, where he is represented as exhorting U8, through the Holy Spirit, in the words of Psalm xxxiii. 11-18; and there is no reason whatever for

1 The words .,b IfIlTG /TJpn, according to the flesh, in c. 32, are also significant. As to tho fiesh, he was descended from Israel; as to the spirit - as to his higher Mtare-ftom whom' The most natural reply is, from God. In whac 1I8IlM' liot u men may be said to be ~ded from God; otherwise, where the' COil-

IrII&, wlla& the distinction, between Jesaa, and other len'. G I Digitized by oog e

"368 CutnNS ROHANU8. (Jult,

supposing, either that Chril!lt had spoken these words on earth, or that Clement arbitrarily put them into bis mouth. He clearly believed him to have spoken in Old Testament times. Here, too, is 0. oonjunotion of God and Christ of a. remarkable character, seeing that the Old Testament scrip­tures are, throughout, represented as the word of God (see, for example, cc. 13, 45, 53); the word of Christ and the word of God are treated on the SaIne footing.

The words 'TO tTNlYptTpov ri]~ p.e-yaAo~ OVIC 7}A~ev Iv ICOP.1rrp Itahrep SlJllap.ev~ '" 'to A., from the sixteenth ohapter, already referred to; contain also a hint of his pre-existence. For, to speak of his being able to appear on earth otherwise than he did, if he then first came into existence, would be absurd; especially so, to say that he thus humbled himse1£ How could he humble himself, if he bad not previously held a. higher position '/

b. There are several scattered allusions, from which we can very naturally deduce that Clement regarded Christ as sinless; this, at all events, is their most obviQus expla.­nation.

In c. 36 we are said to gaze, in him, on the faultless and most excellent countenance of God j and how could this be the case if Christ, even regarded merely as a medium, were imperfect? Aocording to c. 89, ev~n the angels are not beyond the reach of blame when compared with God j yet Christ is greater, higher than the angels. Again, in c. 16, the words of Isaiah liii. are applied to Christ: " there was no guile in his mouth j he suffered for our sins j he bore our sins, not his own," and 80 forth. Whatever view may be taken of the original application of these words, it is enough for our purpose to know that Clement deemed them to have been realized in Christ; and he could scarcely have indicated his perfect innocence and pUl'ity in stronger terms. Further, we are said to be " sanctified through our Lord Jesus Christ" (0. 1) j he is "the gate of righteousness, Mld they are blessed who enter into it, and are found walking in holiness and righteousness." But he who was

Digitized by Goog Ie

1860.] CLEIIENS ROIUNtl'B. 169

himself sinful could never, surely, be styled the "gate of righteousn,e88" to others. Hi,s righteousness is evidently conceived of as of the highest order and degree. Further, 8uch expressions as, your ~efJef,Q, is hi XpUTTrp (c. 1), 'll'0N,. TeWlT~a, ICaTa. TO 1Ca~ICOJf Trp XpUTTrp (c. 3), seem to involve, to say the least, a subordination of our· moral state and life under his, that amounts to something very like sinlessnesl'. Naturally, too, all the points referred -to under the first rubric, and that will be brought forward under the next, point in the same direction.

3. The relation of Christ to men. Clement's epistle contains a great variety of utterances

bearing on this point. In the most natural \vay, and as if the matter were too obvious to admit of doubt, he represents men as dependent on Christ for every species of spiritual good. Grace is spoken of, in cc. 1, S, 30, 31, 50, as xap£~ c:bro Beoii or xup,r; Beoii i in cc. 16 and 59, on the other hand, we read inTo Tal' t'VYOJf T1}r; xapLTo~ alnov [XpUTToii] , and in c. 59, t} xap,r; TOV IC7Jplov t}pilJJf 'I'TJITOV Xpurrov; so that he was deemed by Clement to be, along with God; the source of x&P~ i that is, to all appearance, of the Ilame xap£~. Again, in c. 1 he is set forth as the medium through which men receive xap£~: xapL~ vp.'iJf &'11'0 Beov 8£4 XpUTTOV. The expression in the sixteenth chapter, el "lap 0 KiJpux 0,"Q)~ L • .....1..' t' .J. ~ •• \ \ 1': \ ~ ffTtnrE£".,."POV'TJITEJf T 'll'OLTJITOp.EV 7/J.'E'~ O£ tnro TOJf ,:,11"101' ~ x,Upt,To<; alnov 8,' alnoii EA~OJfT~, " we who come, tllrough him, under the yoke of Ilia grace," is worthy of note. He brings us under his own dominion, under the dominion of his own grace, and is not merely the instrument or agent of bring­ing us under the dominion of God's grace i and yet, as we see from other passages, this same xap£~ is identical with the xup,~ &'11'0 Beoii. Again, in c. 20 a similar thought is expressed in different words: 0 pkyar; BTJp.wvP"lOr;,- Mf"1E" riJ" Ta. 'll'cLVTa wepelC'll'epurlTQ,r; S~ vp.4r; • • • • • &a. TOV ItVptov ~Jf XpUTToii. . Through Christ we are sanctified (c. 1); he is the 080<; III V eiJpop.EJf TO tT0m7PWll t}p.o", - IS 'll'polTTaT'TJ~ KCU Pcn1~6r; (c. 36) i t} EJf 8U«UOtTt1vg m'j,,-'IJ ilTTlll t} b X(J.UTTrjJ (c.

VOL. XXII. No. 87. 47 DIQilizedbyGoogle

87() [Ja11;

48); there is pJa IC~~ ill Xpurr;; (Co 48); we are /C'MJ~w­T£V ill Xpurri> (c. 32); JIC}..f"MypJuoi, we 'J'oii 9EOi1 But '11]0'06 XpttTToV (cc. 50, 58); we are all members of each other and Ta JU~fJ TW Xp£tTTOV; nothing, however, being clearer than that Olement does not mean that Christ bears the same relation to us as do our fellow men; we are TO 7rO{/l-IIUJJ1 -roV XpttTTOV (cc. 44-, 54, 57); Christ is ,wp~ .q,J.&'11 (c. 20, at pass.); Christ's is the {34(n'Mla (c. 60); our 7rurm, our 7T4U­

&la, our ilrya'7T'l], our l),,7rt~, are each and all i" arist (cc.21, 22, 49, 57). Besides these, there are other allusions to the practical relation of Christ to humanity, which, though not of great significance in themselves, harmonize well with, and therefore acquire force from, the other features of the picture sketched by Clement.

In the passages just adduced, Clement plainly puts Christ into a relation to the spiritual redemption and life of man, such as no merely human being could occupy. Indi­vidual expressions might" indeed, he used respecting men, and sometimes are, relatively to externalm&tters; but if we were to substitut,e the name of a human being, even though idealized, for Christ's name, wherever the latter is referred to, the incongruity would at once become obvious i it would at once be plain that the Christ of Clement was not a mere man. To discuss in detail everyone of these utterances would lead us too far i nor is it necessary. What has been advanced by such writers as Gess, relatively to the teachings of the same class in the New Testament is appliqable to the words of Clement, so far as they coincide therewith i and to 0. very large extent they do coincide. , Let us now sum up Clement's utterances regarding Christ, and see what conclusion we are'warranted in drawing.

In the first place, Christ i!;l placed in a relation to God such as neither angels nor men occupy, and is designated by names which are elsewhere used of God; in the second place, he pre-exists and is sinless; in the third place, he is assumed to be both the source and the medium of the highest spiritual, divine blessings. E:vidently theD, iJa

Digitized by Goog Ie

18M] 811

Clement's eyes, Christ stood nearer to God than ia possible fur any creatUTe; so near that the outlines of iRe one fade away into those of the other. He ,does not, indeed, dis­tinctly identify him with God; he does not, in so many words, style him divine; there is no good reason fot believing that he held any definite doctrine regarding Christ's nature aDd attributes; but still Christ fills almost the whole of his horizon, and he implies a unity between him and God, such, as can only be satisfactorily expressed in some such fortnula 8S that of the church. We are justi· fied, then, in maintaining that if Clement had been compelled by antagonists to make the subject a matt.er of special logical reflection, he would unhesitatingly have adopted the doctrine held by the church throughout the ages. The reasons for the indefiniteness which marks his expressions regarding the person of Christ we shall have occasion to notice in another connection.

§ 6. 7Yte Personality and Work of the Holy Spirit.

Clement's allusions to the Holy Spirit are tolerably nume· rous, considering the length and design o'f his epistle; they are characterized, however, by the previously-noticed vague­ness in a doctrinal point of view.

The expression 'lnlEvfU1- lVywv occu~, in all, eight times; in one instance we read 7r1IeVJ14 ICVplov (c. 21).

(1). His personality in general, and personal existence prior to the coming of Christ, seem to be implied in cc. 13, 16,22, and 45, to which we shall refer separately. In the thirteenth chapter; a quotation from Jeremiah is introduced

. by the words M-ye£ 'Yap .,.0 '11'J1eVfU1- 'TO Itywv; similarly also, in c. 16, a quotation from the prophet Isaiah. Now, in cc. 8, 10,18, 33, and elsewhere, God is represented as thus speak. ing, or Jesus Christ; what, therefore, can lie nearer than to suppose that as they are personal, so the Holy Spirit, to 1Vhom the same act is ascribed, is personal? It is true, the bare expression.,.o 'lnlEV1I4 M-ye£ would prove little by itself; for we read in c. 13, Wlv 'Yap d /Jty~ ~, which, from a

, ~Igitized by Goog Ie

872 CLEHBNS BOJUNU8. [July,

oomparison of c. 56, there can be little doubt is equivalent to t7 rypac/n1, i. e. «/n1ulJl (cc. 84, 35), or to TO rypat/JEioJl AI!ye, (c. 28); and it might be argued that as a. personal act is attributed to t7 rypa#, which is obviously impersonal, the attribution of a. personal act to Til 7I'JIWp.a Q,yu)J) does not prove it to be personal. But there are two other circum­stances to be taken into consideration. The ascription of the same TO. A/ryew to both 71'J1Wp.a and rypo.t/JI] neither requires both to be impersonal, nor both personal. That. would be proving too much; for then we might argue that 8e/w and 'I."ao~ were also impersonal. N ow it is, a priori, obvious that ry('Qlln1 is impersonal; but it is by no means so certain that .,n,wp.a also is impersonal. The question then arises: Are there any presumptions to the contrary? A.. personification of t7 rypac/n1. is intelligible enough, for it has a clearly-defined external existence; but as a mere personifi­cation 7I1IWp.a would lack all reality. What is this 'Ir"wJAl' ? we should have to ask. That Clement should use spirit in any pantheistic sense is utterly improbable. Is 71'J1WJ.I4~ '1

then, another term for God or Christ - the Spirit of God, as we say the spirit of man? If this had been his Iqeaning, it is likely that, with his realistic tum of mind, he would have said TO 7I'JIWpa 'TOO 8eoii or 'I"1uoii. His addition of .,0 &tyt.OJI strengthens the inadmissibility of this supposition. Further ~ when he writes "tbe holy scripture saith," he means that "God or Christ saith," because he regarded scripture as God's word; but what of 'TO 7I'JIwpa? especially of 'TO 7I"JIrii­p.a 'TO /Jty£OJI? If it mean anything, it must mean either God or the third person of the Trinity; and as we can see no reason why he should not have said God or Christ,88 in ot.her places, it is probable, particularly in view of the pas­sages next to be noticed, that, even if in a vague way, the Holy Spirit hovered before his mind as a personal being. In c. 22 Jesus is represented 88 exhorting us through the Itoly Spirit, in the 'words of Psalm xxxiii. The Holy

. Spirit is here conceived as Christ's agent in relation to man, in perfect agre~meBt with the New Testament and the doc-

Digitized by Goog Ie

l8G5.] 873

trine of the church. In c.46 we find the remarkable words, II have we not one God and one Christ, and one Spirit of grace which is poured out upon us?" To conclude, h~re, that as God and Christ are personal, so also is the Spirit, would not surely be putting too great pressure on Clement's words; on the contrary, the conclusion seems necessary. That the personality of the Spirit may have been indistinctly present to his mind, is suggested also by his use of 7TJlcn1 in 0. 21, instead of 7TVWJI4: "for God is a searcher of the thoughts and desires; whose breath is in us; and when he wills he takes it away"; for he says 7TJI~ aVroV, and not ...0 7n1Wp.a aVrov. The passage 'Ta~ ax71~Eii. PfltrE~ 7TJIWp4'TOf:

TOii IvyIoU is not quite so clear as some already referred to, but stiH points in the same direction. Such expressions as btx,ua~ 7TJIE6/MltrOf: Ivy/ou, in c. 2, though apparently imper-80nal, are, rightly understood, not inconsistent with the church doctrine of the Spirit. Further evidence that Clem­ent viewed the Holy Spirit as a person is derivable also

, f'rom the operations attributed to him. . 2. Three operations are ascribed to the Spirit: the inspi­rotion of the scriptures, the influencing of sinners, and the Strengthening of believers.

The passages quoted above, from cc. 8, 13, 16, 45, plainly teach that he inspired the writers of the Old Testament. In c. 22 Christ is described as remonstrating with and per­suading men to seek the Lord, through the Holy Spirit­a decided hint towards the doctrine of the Spirit's work in the conversion of sinners. And in c. 42 the apostles are aaid to go forth to their work of evangelization with the full certainty of the Holy Ghost. Now, notwithstanding the vagueness which must be allowed to be characteristic of Clement's allusions to this subject, what impression do we receive on the whole? The answer will depend consider­ably on the point of view of the individual inquirer; but 8till one thing must be conceded, that his utterances are thoroughly compatible with a recognition of the personality of the Holy Spirit in the church's sense; nay more, that

Digitized by Goog Ie

[Jul7,

they permit us to 8UpPO$O that, had occasion called for it, he would have received the church's dootrine as t~ su~ stantial expression of his own unfo~mulated thougbY.

For the late Dr. Baur's assertion, that the Son of God, 80

far as the apostolical Fathers speak of him as a pre-existent being, is identical with the Holy Spirit, there is not a shadow of reason, at all events in Clement's Epilltle. One might with much greater propriety maintain that the Spirit is identical with J ealls Christ; though neither position is tenable.

It is unnecessary to add that, if the acts attributed by Clement to the Spirit in Old Testament times involve lU. versonality, they equally involve Clement's belief in his pre­existence. In short, his manner of alluding to the subject harmonizes best with the supposition that he held, in a co~ crete form, the church's vie,,, of the person and work of tho Holy Spirit~

§ 7. The 'l'rinity.

Our judgment as to whether there be any distinct pre~ rations for, or anticipations of, the doctrine of the Trinity as subsequently developed in the history of the church, will depend on the conclusions arrived at relatively to the two points last examined. If Christ be really represented by Clement as the pre-existent Son of God, who disoharge. divine functions and performs divine works j and if the Holy Spirit be personal and pre-existent; then the foun­dation is clearly laid for the doctrine of the Trinity, how­ever far Clement may be from a formal recognition thereof; and we may reasonably say, as in previous cases, that, had he found opportunity, he would have accepted the church'll doctrine as the natural, if not fully satisfactory, expression of his owu belie£ There is only one passage which can be deemed, in any sense, to hint at the doctrine of the Trinity; it is in c. 46 : ~ H 0Vx} lila 8£0" lxop.w mlilla XpurrOJl; m4 h 'lr'JlWp.tJ T71~ X&.pt.T~ TO UXO~& e¢' .qp.Q8; but it is too Bligh~ a foundation on ~hich to build; though it would be a vefT

Digitized by Goog Ie •

1i66.J OLfJI.Elf8 ROIlLW& 875

Datura! course to refer to the New Testament baptismal formula as furnishing an analogy to, and perhaps an expla­nation of, Clement's words.

§ 8. 2le Atonement of eMist.

Au impartial exarpination of his epistle can leave littlo doubt that Clement believed the death of Christ to have eft'ected for men someihiog outside of them, as well as pro­duced a spiritual effect in them. The strongest words bearing on this subject are found in cc. 7, 16, and 49. They run 8S follows: c. 7, "Let us gaze intently .on the blood of Christ, and let us see how precious to God is his blood, which, having been shed for our salvatioo, has brought the grace of repentance to the entire world; II c. 49, " Because of the love he had towards us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave his blood on our- behalf by the will of God, and his flesh for our flesh, and his soul for our souls;" in c. 16 the fifty­third chapter of Isaiah is quoted as a prophecy of Jesus Christ and his sufferings, and is plainly considered to ex­press their significance. As Dr. Dorner remarks in his Christology, regarding one of these passages in conjunction with others to be adduced afterwards: "Every explanation is forced which does not find in them the idea of substi­tution, a.nd that both in a subjective and object.ive sense­subjective in Christ's substitntionary spirit or disposition, and objeotive in that his. substitutionary spirit and deed had their correspondent objective result." Several other more or les8 distinct allusions to the efficacy of the blood of Christ occur. For example, in c. 12 the red thread hung by Rahab in the window of her house, as a sign to the in­vading Israelites, is treated as a type of the redemption to be wrought out by the blood of Ohrist for all who believe and hope in God. Whatever opinion we may entertain as to the typical value of this thread of &hab'B, Clement's 'View of the death of Christ iii plain enough. Again, in c. 21 we read: "let us pay heed to Jesus Christ, who was given for us"; in c. 2 the Corinthians are praised for keeping

Digitized by Goog Ie

876 0LEIIEN8 ROJLUrnS. [Jaly,

the sufferings of Christ before their eyes, to wit, not merely as an example, though this is included, but as a principle of self-sacrifice in them, and a source of great blessing, Fur­other, in cc. 36 and 58 Christ is designated our high-priest, a term which first acquires full force, especially as taken in connection with fJMJ"i!sor;, 1TpOtTTa~ and the remarks made above, when we apply it in the sense of the church. The death of Christ would thus seem to have been regarded by Clement as having taken place to redeem men from penal­ties 9therwis6 inevitable, and to bring to them blessings otherwise inaccessible. A clearly worked-out doctrine there is not; but there certainly is a recognition of that concrete basis on which the church. subsequontly built its doctrine of the atonement.

§ 9. Justification by Faith.

Clement's clearest utterance concerning t.he nature snd significance of fuith is contained in c.82, where we read: "All these, then, were honored and magnified, not through themselves or their works, or the just deeds which they wrought, but through his will. We also, therefore, called by his will in Christ J ~sus, are not justified by ourselve~, nor by our wisdom or intelligence or piety or works which we have wrought in sanctity of heart, but by jaith, by which the omnipotent God hath justified all from the beginning." Nothing can be more distinct. We are justified by faith, not by works. -The coincidence with the fou~h and fifth chapters of the Epistle to the Romans is very obvious and complete.

Clement alludes to faith as a moral and spiritual force, in eight passages. In four passages God is plainly its object; in one clearly, and in three others it may, perhaps, without force be maintained to refer to Christ. In c. 3 we read : "each quits the fear of God, and is dim-sighted in his faith;" in c. 10: " for his faith and hospitality a son was given to Abraham in his old age"; in c. 12 the faith and hospi­tality of Rahab are praised; and in c. 31 we read that

Gigitized by Goog Ie

1865.] 877

Abraham was blessed because he wrought righteousnesa and truth through faith, that is, in God. Of these passages, the last is the only one that can be said to have any'speoial force; and the context forbids basing any definite judgment on it. Clement's immediate object seems to have been to enumerate al O&~ ~ eiIMYyta~, and he apparently ranks faith as one mode among others of attaining to blessing. A.bra­ham wrought righteousness and truth 8&4 '1f'krre~; Isaac, twra'1f'E'1f'CH~CTi~ ~8E~ I!yElIETO ~ta; Jacob, eEex,up71CTeJ1 pera. 'f'tJ'Itewot/>poCTv~. In this case, however, any seeming incon­sistency is attributable to the practical character of what he writes, and to vagueness in the use of language. The seo­tion in which the above expressions occur, finishes with the strong declaration regarding the nullity of everything but faith quoted above i as though Clement had intended by • the close to obliterate any ambiguity occurring in the coorse of his exhortations. We must here observe the role of explaining obscurer by clearer passages. Where Clement meant to treat of the relative value of different principles, he leaves no doubt as to the position due to faith. We must further remember that owing to the purely practical purpose of his epistle, Clement naturally gave full promi­nence to each particular moral or spiritual force as it came into view.1

Clement never quite distinctly teaches that we are justi­fied by faith in the blood of Christ; but that a connection existed for his mind between faith and the death of Christ in the justification of sinners may be concluded on various

1 This is a very simple Frinciple, which has been greatly neglected by too mlllly interpreters of our canonical &eripturea. The sacred writers were not so ~ of .peaking strongly, now in one direction, and then in another direction apparently incompatible with the first, as we Il1'O now. We stand in constanc awe of being misunderstood by some weak brother or sister. Thoroughly examined, there is scarcely a proof of the inspiration of scripture stronger than tIIae fonnaI, logical inconsistencies; for the man of spiritual insight feeIa and leeS these very inconsistencies to be living truth - truth drawn directly fiom &he evertJowing wells of life, and given to the thirsty without being first disin­Cfgrated and rccompounded, and thus deprived of freshness and vigor. LiCe is JIpt, IU1d lighc Ia life.

VOL. XXII. No.81..a Digitized by Google

grounds: first, frem tM univenal .igoiflC8llC9 attributed to 7rUrr'" in c. 32; secondly, frem such expressions 88 'tria-

, 'T~ Ell XpurT/jI. in c. 22; thirdly, from the words referring to Isaac in c. 31, where he is said to have freely become a sao­rifice, knowi'1lg', wluU was to come, to wit, what Christ would do; and lastly, in connection with the foregoing, from the ,tress elsewhere mid on Christ's death as the salvation of the entire world and the source of such virtues as repent­ance. For with his ethical and practical tendencies, Cle­ment must have conceived salvation to have been appro­priated through the medium of Ilome such human act or organ 80S faith: In the light of c~ 32 it is impossible to sup­pose that Clement should have recognized any other pri~ ciple by which this salvation is mediated, save faith. The words {3e{3al411 'It'lfTTW vpiiJ" in c. 1 may also be taken to

• involve the presupposition of Christ as the object and content of faith, particuJarly as viewed in connection with the next cmuse 'T~II W Xpl.C1Trp dxr4{JeUUl.

Roman Catholic writers, indeed, endeavor to show that Clement places works and charity on the same level with faith, as principles of acceptance before God. But the pas­~ages on which they rely for proof are, to say the least, very feeble. One is contained in c. 30, where we read: " let us put on concord, being humble-minded, continent., removing fur from all whispering and slander,jwtifying OfWselves by works, and not by words." That the opposition here lies behveen works and mere words, and not between deeds and faith, as a principle of justification, is as plain as pOllsible, especially from what follows: "He who speaketh much shall hear in reply, Does a man of many words think to be just? Do not be great in words I " The contrallt is between reality and pretence, not between works and faith, which are equally realities and equally important in their relative positions, in Clement's estimation. The other passage is c. 50: "Bles­sed are we, beloved, if we have fulfilled the commands of God in concord of love, in order that our sins may be reo mitted to us through love (8,·Ivt&:lr~)." The following

Digitized by Goog Ie

l86i.] .79 considerations will set aside aay difficulty that ma.,. be ocea­aioned by these words: firat, that 88 it would be unwarrant­able to base a doctrine of justifieatioD by faith on. any single passage, in face of a number of other passages of a differeot tendency, some very clear and some indistinct; so in the present instance. Secondly, Clement neveu uses the strong and decided language regarding love that he uses regarding wth. Thirdly, his experience, we do not say his concepticm, of faith was not of tha.t dead thing to which Roman Ca.th­olics oppose love;. to him, fa.ith, was the root of love, love the ripe outcome of faith. Fourthly, the idea of love as a Bource of merit before God would clash with the passages quoted above, and with the present. context. Fifthly, s,' .~ here signifies, probably, "through love," i.e. in God or Christ, and not "on account of love," which would • \le 8,'lvyalrr1J7l. This meaning is suggested to an unpreju­diced reader by the very next words: "for it is writ­ten, Blessed are they whose sins are cOIV'erec1."· And, lastly, 88 we have observed "in another connection, Cle­ment's practical tende~cy led him to lay strong emphasis on each spiritual principle or virtue as it presented itself to his view. In ahort, the foundation supplied to Catholics by Clement is as feeble as that supplied by the writers of the New Testament.

§ 10. The Resurrection •.

On tbis point Clement's testimony is more clear and p~ cise than on any other. He devotes to it three entire chapters, cc. 24, 25, aDd 26, and alludes to it in cc. 27 and 42. He assumes, first, the fact of the resurrection of Christ; speaks of his resurrection as the first-fruits, to be­followed by ours; and refers, ia illustrative support thereof, to the fable of the phoenix and to various analogies of na.­ture. In c. 26 he quotes the words of Job xix.: "Thou abalt wake up my flesh again," iD confirmation of the resur· rection. Into the mode and time of our resurrection, and other questions connected therewith, h& does DOt entel' at

\

Digitized by Goog Ie

380 CLEIrIEWS ROJIANUS. [July,

all. From his use of the words of Job, however, he would appear to have IU5sumed the resurrection of the body. So that his references to this point, though clearer than usual, contain little or nothing of a properly doctrinal character. That his allusions to tbe resurrection should be unusually distinct, is plainly attributable to its being something tan­gible and objective; besides, that was most probably (see c. 42 where the apostles are said to have been inspired with confidence by the resurrection of Christ) the chief support of Christian beliet; and the main argument in ftle conviction of heathen. ,

Such, then, are the main features of the theology of Cle­ment, so far as we may speak of his having a theology at all. The question next to be considered is: What relation does the theology of Clement's epistle bear to the theological views current in the Christian circles of his day? Does Clement here· fairly represent the state of theological thought, both as to form and substance? Our answer is, Yes ; and on the following grounds:

§ 11. The Position, and Character of Clement.

1. Clement occupied a position which gave him ample opportunity of becomillg directly conversant with the theo­logical thought of the church of his day. He was acquainted with the apostle Paul (Phil. iv. 8), even if he did not accom­pany him on his journeys, as some have supposed. Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerome, and other early writers tes­tify to his being the same as the one mentioned in the pas­sage just quoted. He was probably a citizen of Philippi, and after his converllion to Christianity labored there, in conjunction with others. This must have been prior to A.. D. 63 or 64; and from that time onwards till about A. D.

92 to 101 he continued, so far as we know, to serve Christ, either in Philippi or other cities. Between A..D. 92 and 101 he held the office of bishop of Rome, and, 8S the high value set on the epistle which bears his name sufficiently proves,

Digitized by Goog Ie

1865.] I8t

was greatly esteemed by the Christian churches in general •. Now a man of his age and intellectual and moral cbaractel-, even though he had held no prominent official positions, must have contracted a wide acquaintance with the belief of bis contemporaries; muoh mOle if he had held the posi­tions commonly ascribed to Clement.

2. His intellectual and moral qualities fitted him for re­flecting the general average thought of his contemporaries. So far as we can judge from his epistle, and it reads like a true expression of his inner being, Clement's mind was pre­cisely of that order from which we expect and receive the most accurate testimony.

He was of a practical, unspecu]ative tuni; his judgmeut was sober and well balanced; he evinces ,<ulture and sus­ceptibility to beauty in nature 8nd style; snd while not possessed of striking force, cannot by any means be charged with feebleness.

To his predominantly practical tum of mind, we have had frequent occasion to refer. The entire epistle bears testi· mony thereto: there is not a single feature of an opposite character.

That his judgment was sober and well balanced appears from his mode of treating the entire dispute in question; from the absence of extravagant asceticsl ideas and exag­gerated notions about martyrdom; from his abstinence from allegory and from his treatment, to single out one matter, of the fable of the phoenix. There is scarcely an exhorta­tion, a practical judgment, a general observation, that is not as applicable now as it was then. With what wisdom does he commence his exhortations I With what mingled severity and tenderness does he treat the offenders I In praise he is not too fnIl; in blame, not too harsh. And he seeks through­out to accomplish his design rather by warning examples ot contention and encouraging examples of concord aud obedience than by direct exhortation and reproof. How wise and discriminating are the following words from c. 38 : " Let not the strong man neglect the weak, but let the weak

Digitized by Goog Ie

381

esteem the atrong; let the riOO give to the -poor, and let the poor thank God tbat he hath given him one thrGUgh whom his wants are supplied. Let the wise evince his wisdom, Dot in words, but ill. good works. He who is humble should not bear testimony to himself, but should leave testimony to be borne by others. He who is chaste as to the flesh, let him not be puffed up, knowing that another hath given him tho gift of continence.}'

Who that reads his praise of the Corinthians, in c. 2; his description of the ooncord and harmony of the universe, in c. 20; his impassioned encomium 'of charity, in c. 49; and notes the spirit of love and harmony which breathes through ma.ny other passages, can call in question his culture and his 8ense of beauty T

And, finally, though not distinguished for force, his mind is by no means chargeable with weakness. Sometimes he exhibits considerable energy, as, for example, in c. 46; his mode of treating the matters he touches, though in a for­mal respect very loose, is substantially firm and self-consi@t­ent; sometimes, through sheer, earnest common sense, he approaches to a broad philosophical view, as for example, of faith as a spiritual force, in c. 82; in c. 49 we have an independent expansion of a thought derived from the apostle Paul.

In short, an unprejudiced examination of the epistle reveals an author whose mind is marked by the sobriety, practicalness, harmony, freedom from idiosyncracies, which warrant the expectation that his references to matters of belief and life, will be a fair reflection of the spi* of hie age.

§ 12. 7le Circumstance, cmd Characar uf the Epiltle.

1. The epistle is addressed, according to the salutation in chapter 1, by the church in Rome to the ohurch in Oorinth; and, acoording to Eusebius,l waa writteu by Cle­ment in his official capacity as bishop of Rome. Here, then,

1 Eu.ebiu8, Hist. Eccl. m., 16,38.

Digitized by Goog Ie

•. J we have a double testimony: 1. to the aathority enjoyed by OleDleat; 2. to the authority of the epistle itself.

An officialeommunicRtion from one church to another nuld naturally touch only such points and urge 8uch consid­erations 88 were generally accepted. Whatever, therefore, occurs in it, may be safely assumed to have been commonly recognized as constituent elements of Christian belief.

2. Throughout the epistle there is no attempt whatever to demonstrate any doctrine, or prove any fact j 1 all is Caken for granted. And further, doctrines and facts are in­troduced in the way of allusion - two peculiarities, which coDBist alone with the supposition that the Epistle reflects truly the 8ubstance and form of theological thought in Cle­ment's day. As to substance, anything new or peculiar would have demanded proof, even between churches; especially when written by one individual in the name of a community. As to form, had it been customary to employ a more ratiocinative form, we must surely have found traces thereof even in an official letter. In similar lett.ers written at a later period there is a marked difference in this respect, due unquestionably to the different character of the thought of the age.

This character of Clement himself, and of his epistle, viewed in connection with other considerations, is further a strong testimony to his having labored and written at the era we have supposed. Had he lived·later, from the promi­nent position he occupied, we should have expected a tone and turn of mind more after the type of later writers, sucb III Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, and others. And a few years later, an epistle that abstains so completely from theological controversy, that is occupied so exclusively with the practical aspects of Christianity, and that breathes'so convinced, 80 harmonious, so peaceful a

1 BoID8U Catholic writers might say that this was because Clement wrote authoritatively, as !ie head of the Church on earth. But there is no trace 1rhatmer or lueh authority in the epistle. Clement writes as a brother to 1Irechrta, III.d all hII reproofI and appeU bear &bia cbaracter.

Digitized by Goog Ie

884 CLEIrIENS ROJLUroS. [July,

spirit, could not have been written from a Western to an Eastern church. The scanty and vague reference to points of ecclesiastical order are natural enough, if our supposi- • tion be correct; completely unnatural, on a contrary view. If Clement had held the more distinct and developed ideas set forth, for example, in some of the epistles commo~y ascribed to Ignatius, there was occasion enough for ad-vancing them. .

We conclude, then; from the mental and moral character­istics of Clement that he was fitted ~o represent to us the form and substance of the theological thought of his day, and that, from the tone of his epistle, he actually does it.

§ 13. Contemporary Christian Writings.

In support of the t.estimony thus bome by Clement'a -epistle, we may adduce, further, the other works ascribed to his age; whether truly ascribed, or not, does not greatly affect the present argument. We refer to the epistles of Ignatius (particularly the shorter recension), of Barnabas, of Polycarp. These all bear the same general character 88 the epistle of Clement, though they betray, in a higher degree, the idiosyncracies of the several writers. At the same time, however, "We must observe that these idiosyn­cracies relate principally to practical questions, such as martyrdom and church government, while in relation to doctrine all are substantially at one.

The circumstance that no writings of any very decidedly different character were ever attributed to the orthodox circles of the post.a.postolic age, is a confirmation, e silen.tio, of the position that the extant works were then written, and that the belief and life of the church were then substantially Buch as we have indicated. Whether we accept the gene­rally assumed age of the writings in question' or not, this is certain, that antiquity believed the post-apostolic age to have been such as we hav-e assumed; and ljIltil good posi­tive reasons are adduced to the contrary, this consideration must have weight. It is true the Tiibingen school bas

Digitized by Goog Ie

1865.] CLEMENS ROMANUS. 885

labored to spread the canonical and other early Christian , writings over the first and part of the second century, in

order thus to show that the general· character of the so­called post-apostolic age was by no means that which Buch productions as the epiRtle of Clement would imply. But the arguments adduced are either exceedingly feeble or purely negative, and owe their existence entirely to the necessities of their general philosophical theory of history. But we shall return a.gain to this matter.

§ 14. If such, then, were the cha.racter of the immedi­ately post-apostolic age - on the one hand non-speculative, non-productive in an intellectual point of view, almost ex­clusively devoted to great practical questions i and yet., on the other, actnally possessed of a rich store of lofty and, for the time, unusnal thoughts relating to the highest ques­tions of existence, both speculative and practical, all set forth ,vith a directness, certitude, and all informality, to say the lellst, remarkable - what conclusion are we, not merely warranted, but compelled, to draw respecting the age which preceded? We answer, first, that age must have been marked by great, startling productiveness, both in thought and deed. The historical phenomenon that numerous, aI!d in some instances large; communities of men, themselves not at all remarkable for culture, and whose leaders givo no signs of having been productive, should hold, and that too BO firmly, a number of thoughts and principles which, what­ever judgment we may form as to the abstract truth of many of them, are distinguished by a grand and moral beauty hitherto totany strange to the greater part of the world, requires some explanation. If these first Christians had

I been comparatively few in number, and possessed of high I

I culture, then we might deem it possible that they were the • outcome of a slow and gradoal spiritual movement, whose

initiator was Socrates, and main factors J esos, Paul, Peter, and John. Bot 8S the first Christians were mostly heathens of the Jower classes, we see no mode Of accounting for the existence of the facts addoced, bnt by assuming that the

'V'OL. XXII. No. 87. 49 . .. Digitized by Google

886 OLllIEN8 ROMANUS. [July,

preceding age had been marked by unus1W, or as we be­lieve supernatural, productiveness. Secondly, an age ofthis remarkable character must ha.ve immediateltJ preceded the phenomenon in question. For this assumption there are both historical and general grounds. Those who live and work under the direct impression of such thoughts and deeds as had then been produced, are seldom capable of entering into speculative investigations; they are too much possessed by them reflectively to dream of possessing them. But when the second generation has passed, reflection begins; the thoughts and fa~ts have to be communicated to those whose interest can only be awakened by reflection; doubts arise, objections have to be met; and so the teach­ings assume a totally different stamp - they become indi­rect and ratiocinative. This latter is the general character of the ages of Christianity which succeeded that of the tipoa­tolic Fathers. We fi,nd also a similar course of things, even if in a less degree, during the entire history of the church. When there has been a great revival of Cbris,tian life, those who have written under the direct impression created by it, have produced, for the most part, works bearing a concrete, direct, practical character. ~o' far as they have borne a different character, it is attributable to the difference of cir­cumstances; to wit, in the latter case, we have to do with a revival of truths to which contemporaries have become reI. tively hostile or indifferent j in the former case, totally new truths are brought into direct contact with a generation groping after light. But the law, in its general features, holds good. We find too, as a matter of fact, that later writers never did, because they never could, treat Christian doc­trine and fact in the same assumptive,- undemonstrative manner; though in proportion as Christian books have been the direct outflow of revived life and manifest divine inter­ferences, in that proportion have they been of the same stamp as the epistle of Clement.

§·15. In the canonical -writings we have the record of deeds and thoughts precisely such as account for the phe-

Digitized by Goog Ie

•

88J

nomenon in question. Anyone candidly and carefully ob­serving the phenomena of the post-apostolic age, even .supposing he knew nothing whatever of the canonical scrip­tures, must be forced to ask: In what have they taken their rise? The men themselves are not, in any sense, their originators, for they appeal to something already existing and recognized; they make no attempt to justify what they advance, as they must if it were new. If to such an observer the canonical scriptures were presented, and he were told: These record the deeds, thoughts, and life of men who immediately preceded the age you are studying, he would reply: Yes, here are the roots, hete is the obvious explana­tion; the two are correlatives. And to d~ny such events their appropriate practical results, would be equivalent to .denying their reality; and practical phenomena of the kind under consideration are inexplicable save by such events.

If this be the case, then the coincidences between this epistle of Clement and the other writings of the apostolic Fathers on the one hand, and the several books of the New Testament on the other, even where not distinctly stated to be such, may be deemed quotations; aDd we f,Lre thus auppJied wjth a strong argument for-the truth and authority of the canonical ~criptures.

§ 16. Recent Objections to these Views.

Against the supposition that the Ohristian contemporaries of Clement have in him a fair representative; that, both for­mally and materially, his epistle reflects the state of theo­logical thought among them; that th.e church then must be described as exclusively devoted to the practical aspeots of Christianity, holding its facts and doctrines in a concrete, immediate, non-reflective form; and that consequently, in a scientific point of view, they not only did not continue, but to a certain extent went back from, the productive process of their predecessors,'"-against this supposition, the loudest protest has been raised by the school of Dr. Baur in TiibiIl­gen. Such an evident interruption in the theoretical develop-

Digitized by Goog Ie

888 CLDID8 ROKANU8. [July.

ment of the 1/ idea" as the ordinary view of the' immediately post-apostolic age involves, conflicts too strongly with their general theory of history, and is too favorable to the super­natural origin and character of Christianity to be left unas­sailed. Accordingly, all the weapons ~f history, criticism, and theory have been brought to bear on this particular era. No stone has been left unturned, no nook has been left unsearched, in order to effect a revers!ll of the long­formed judgment of the Christian church. Heretical works have been raised to the position of true representatives of the state of belief; the orthodox works have been assigned to a later period and an inferior position; and, finany, the canonical books have been distributed over a time nearly double that usually allotted for their production. If, as i8 maintained, the first form of Christianity were Ebionism; jf it then threw off its Judaistic limitations in Paul; and if, at the commencement of the second century, it first rose to its full philosophical height in the Gospel of John, which was the result and reconciliation of the antagonism between the Pauline and Petrine parties - then undoubtedly the ordi­nary view of both the apostolic and immediately post-apoe­tolic writings must be false. But the evidence is inspired by the a priori theory, instead of the theory being con­structed on the evidence; and in consequence the evidence is, naturally enough, to say the least, very far-fetched and feeble. For example, Dr. Daur~s own treatment of Clement and other apostolic Fathers, both in his work on tho Trinity and elsewhere, is scandalously defective, considering the attention he bestows on others of far less importance. Our .int.ention here is, not to discuss the critical questions at issue; this has been done, in a masterly manner, by soch writers as Dr. Dorner.1 Dut we shall add a felv general observations designed to show that the theory of the Tiibingen school is opposed to, while the ordinary view harmonizes with, both the genius and mission of Christianity and the \1sual course of human history. .

1 800 his Entwickclungsgeachichte dcr Lehro von dcr PCl'IIOn Christi. VoL L on C1~t. DIQilizedbyGoogle

1865.] CLEJIElJ8 BOKANU8. 889

1. The primary aim of Christianity is practical; it seeks first of all to influence the life, the conduct; its action on the intellect, as such, is secondary, and, though inevitable, not a necessity of the first order. This was particularly the case at its first appearance. The Jewish and heathen worlds were sunk in utter corruption, and cried out, not so much for new intellectual activity, as for a new moral life. The first Christians, therefore, with the correctness of instinct, devoted their thoughts and labors to Christianity as a re­dcmpt.ion from sin and as the principle of anew, righteous 80cial order. They themselves had found deliverance, peace, harmony, and their first impulse was to propagate these blessings iii the enslaved, troubled, and discordant world around them. Christianity can never be introduced on a wide scale, or get firm footing among men, unless it be first viewed and proclaimed in its purely practical features. To take its theoretical aspects as the starting.point is equiv­alent, in fact, to 0. complete reversal of its essence and mission: If this be the case, then Clement and his contem­poraries deserve the praise of having done precisely the work which required immediately to be done - a praise they would not have merited had they been productive in the manner deemed necessary by the Tiibingen school.

2. Christianity is undoubtedly intended to assume the form of a. system of truth in 'the intellect of man; but it can only do so by first taking root in his moral and spiritual nature. Even now it is not communicable as a mere intel­lectual system, apart from certain spiritual conditions; and yet we have grown up under its influence, and it has de­termined both the form and substance of our thought. He who would truly understand- intellectually, scientifically understand - the Christian system, must have felt the power of Christ's redeeming love. Till then he stands outsido of it; and, as such, may perhaps IJa\"'o some inkling of its inner 'beauty and self-consistency; but a vital comprehen­sion, never. How much truer must this have been at its tint appearance in the world I What folly to havo pre-

Digitized by Goog Ie

890 CLEMENS ROMAN US. [July,

sen ted it as a system of truth glorious though it be, to the corrupt and sceptical contemporaries of the apostles r The way to its intellectual appreciation lay through the heart and life. Not only was it natural, therefore, that those who had experienced the power of the new GOtlpel should be absorbed in the praise, meditation, and diffutlion of its prac­tical effects; but even in ralation to the development of the truths of Christianity as an intellectual, as a scientific, mat­ier, their course was the only one appropriate to the circum­stan~es of the case. Any such immediate attention to the aoctrinal aspects of Christianity as is demanded by the Tii­bingen school would huve defeated its own ends. Instead of a generation of men being prepared for taking up the work in a living manner, the existing thinkers would have wasted their efforts on each other,· and, like all systems pre­aomillantly and permanently theoretical, Christianity would shortly have become a dead let.ter, instead of being a living power in the world.

S. If the central feature of Christianity be Ch;ist and the deeds he wrought for the redemption of men, then we can fully account for both the vagueness as to form, and the loftiness as to substance, of the utterances regarding Christ and other matters contained in the apostolic and post-apos­tolic writings. The doctrinal distinctness we now demand would have been unnatural. How was it possible for those who had come into personal contact with Christ, and had experienced his ma.rvellous saving power, to enter at once into those inv.estigations which are presupposed by a formal doctrine? They all- and for our present purpose we may include t.he generation to which the apostles preached - believed in the person whom they had felt and handled; their conversion to Christ had been brought about by per­sonal contact or by news from the lips of such as had themselves seen. They had not, like us, previously received cold, formal instruction; the gospel came, simultaneously, as news for the head and news for the heart.

In illustration of these remarks, let U8 addupO oi1~ point: • Digitized by L:.oogre

1866.] CLEMENS ROMANUS. 891

Was it to be expected that all who bad lived witt} Christ and helU'd of his life, as a human being, should at once be pr~red distinctly to designate him God? "His imntediate disciples and their converts - for example, Clement - did indeed employ the most manifold terms to exalt him and express his dignity, short of styling him God. We find, how­ever, in confirmation hereof, that precisely those books which were written latest, bear the strongest traces of a doctrinal, a speculative, estimate of the person of Christ; and why? because as time elapsed, the direct, personal im­pression wore off. and the mind became more free to inquite ioto the nature and constitution of the marvellous being who had revealed God and redeemed their life from death. We have here only repeated in another form, what theolo­gians long ago expressed, to wit, that though the canon­ical books contain all the concrete materials out of which the doctrinl!s of the church may be fairly formed, they do not give us the doctrinos themselves,. as such. And this

. holds ~ completely good of the post-apostolic writers. From this point, also, light is thrown on the question of

Ebionism, of which so much has been made by the Tiibingen eehool. They assert, namely, that Ebionism was the first form of belief regarding the person of Chri!.lt, and that the higber forms of belief are the result oftbe conBict, marriage, and development of the original and of new elements. It may be true that it was one of the first forms of belief, especially after reBection had begun; but it is by no means so clear that it was the only form, or the truest form. That lOme of the first disciples might have been, or at any rate hecame, Ebionites, may be safely allowed by him whose impression of the glory of the only begotten of the Father is even now 8S profound as possible; and for the following additional reasons: The disciples of Christ were content at first simply to belie\'e in him who had lived before theit eyes; be had occupied the highest possible position in their minds; few if any of them had found it necessary to 1Iadertake 6 1Il0re precise definition of his position in rela-

Digitized by Goog Ie

892 [July,

tion to God and man; in other words, they had formed DO

doctrine of his person. But in course of time, especially when it became incumbent on them to give reasons why others should believe in Christ, who had never seen him, many found it necessary to come to some decision. The simple.minded would th.en, as now and ever, rest satisfied with saying, I have experienced this and that. Those of higher intellectual force and culture would divide into two classes: such as were of a more spiritual, meditative, specu· lative cast of mind, would take the step recognizing Christ to be the Son of God - a step logically and practically in­evitable to all who fairly weigh the facts and have proper insight into their own needs; such, onthe ~ontrary, as were of a. colder, more matter·of·fact cast of mind would at first desire to remain where they were, but afterwards fall back, recognize merely the man in Christ, and thus constitute the Ebionitical party.

4. It is in harmony with the ordinary course of history that the development of religious life and thought under the apostles should be unusually full and varied, and that there should be a comp&rative falling off immediately afterwards.

Great eras in the history of mind are seldom such in merely one aspect' The rich life that has been accumulating manifests itself in many directions almost simultaneously. So was it at the age of Socrates; so at the age of the Refor­mation: poetry, philosophy, art, theology, suddenly attained a height to which the majority of men have never, since been able to climb. Indeed, every nation that has borne a part in the culture of humanity has had its golden age; in other words, an age wheu it evinced unusually profound and varied productiveness, and gave an impulse to coming gene­rations.

Why, then, should it be otherwise at that great crisis in the religious history of humanity, the appearance of the Son of God on earth? It is true, neither this nor any other golden era has appeared without preparation; but all expe­rience is against the Tiibingen position, that the work done

Digitized by Goog Ie

•

•

1865.] CLEHENS ROJUBU8. 893

in less than one century must have extended over nearly double the time; and experience is equally favorable to the supposition that., \vithin the life of the first apostles, seeds of systems were sown, antagonisms were brought to light, and reconciliations effected, for whose full development long centuries would be necessary. Had it not been the case, we might fairly doubt whether a new divine life had been really poured through the perishing organism of humanity.

History, too, equally teaches that such extraordinarily fruitful eras are usually followed by periods of comparative calm and sterility. It is so in the inner life of every earnest thinker and earnest believer; he has his times of sudden manifold growth and expansion, followed by times of dearth and seeming relapse. There is not a real falling.off in either case; but time is required to bring the great mass of hu­manity up towards the point which its heroes have reached, as it were at a single bound; this, ill fact, is the specific mission of such heroes; they appear, not for their own sake, but for the sake of others. In other words, a productive, is, and must ordinarily be succeeded by, a digestive and reproductive age. But for this the history of humanity would preseut the spectacle of a series of brilliant flashings forth of intellectual and religious life, but would not be marked by a steady progress of all classes from a lower to a higher state.

Religious revivals, also, are generally followed by seasons of apparent relapse; but the relapse is not real. The sud­denly-received convictions and life hd.ve to be incorporated with the entire man, and the new power for influence ac­quired has to be brought to bear on others; both which are Blow and gradual processes. Humanity as a whole may be likened to a traveller wandering towards the highest poiut of a mountain-range. Sometimes he plainly and rapidly rises, for the scenes on which he looks back grow suddenly wider and grander. At other times he pursues his path along level plateaus, or even descends into vallies, and then it is as though he were losing ground and going back; but

VOL. xxn. No. 87. .50 DIQilizedbyGoogle

•

894 CLEMENS BOMANUS. [Joly,

this is only seeming i for in reality he is constanUy progres­sing i and, once arrived at the goal, he will see how the s~dden ascents, the repeated descents, and the even plains were each and all so many steps lying between him and the summit he had purposed to surmount.

The sudden and, as the Christian church to its consola­tion and strength believes, supernatural leap taken by the apostles produced at once great practical results i but these results have required, and will still require, many, many ages for their intellectual appreciation. And we cali only rejoice that their successo,rs carried on the work begun, not indeed in the manner which the wise of this world deem glorious and good, but still in the very manner necessary to the salvation of men and the glory of God.

Le,t us now briefly recapitulate. Our object has been to draw from the Epistle of Clement an indirect argument for the reality of the ovents, and the authenticity of the books, on which the Christian church' bases its existence. The follo,ving a.re the steps in our argument:

1. The Epistle of Clement is a work whose authorship and authentici,ty are critically established.

2. Its teachings, notwithstanding their formal vagueness, are substantially identical with all the orthodox creeds and with the canonical writings.

3. The character of its author, its own tone, and the tone of similar writings ascribed to the same period, warrant the belief that these teachings reflect, both 8.S to forin and sub­sta.nce, the spirit of the then church.

4:. If such be the case, when we consider, on the one hand its intellectual unproductiveiless, and on the other its grand ideas and deeds, we are compelled to assume that an age of unusual life and activity immediataly preceded.

5. On examining the canonical writings, We find just suell «leeds' and thoughts as furnish a. key to the phenomena or the post-"postolic age.

6. "'fIt e accordingly conclude that these deeds, were Digitized by Goog Ie

1863.] THE FIRST ELEVEN CHAPTERS OP GENESIS.

tvroasbt and these thoughts recorded at the time and in the manner commonly supposed. ,

7. We have, lastly, added a few observations intended to meet the latest objections to the churcb's view of the apos­tolic and post-apostolic ages.

ARTICLE II.

THE FIRST ELEVEN CHAPTERS OF GENESIS ATTESTED BY THEIR CONTENTS.1

BY PROP. BORATIO B. HACKBTT, NBWTON, KAIIII.

A DISTINGUISHED writer, Max Duncker, begins his excei­lent History of Antiqvjty with a general remark respecting

1 The following Article consists mainly of a free translation of a portion of Professor Auberlen's "Die gattliche Oftenbarung: Ein apologetischcr Vcr-1lICh." Erster Band, pp. 123-163. The volume which contains this extract was published in 1861, and is regarded as the ablest production of that eminent Ieholar. The second YOlume has just come to hand, entitled" Zu:r Lchre Tom Keuschen als rellgii>sem. Wescn," but proves, alas I to be a fragment only, in llOIIIequence of the death of the author, and appeared as a posthumous work, ill July of the last year. .A friendly hand has prefixed to the unfinished treatise , brief sketch of the writer's life and character. It is a beautiful picture, and portrays to us a man wllo 11'88 thorougllly in earnest, whose religious convictions were heartfelt, who had received the word of God into his soul as a sonree of Iifllllnd power, was a faithful worker for the cause of his Lord and Master, IIId when the last hour clime could say, with a full consciousness of its solcm­Ditr: • God 'be thanked, of aeath I have no fear; the Lord Jesus is my light IIId my song'; and in the joy of that faith passed quietly away.

It is proper to state that some parts of the CIIIIay, as presented here, are an ihstnct of the original, rather than a version. It was the more neccssary to be lime free in some passages, because the author's style is unusually terse and idiomatic, and bas so many expressions borrowed from tho philosophical pbraso­o1ogy of tho Gennans. .A few additional notes and references have been inserted IDd two or three paragraphs abridged, but nothing, of co~, has been added or omitted which affects in any way the argumcnt ot Idcias of the writer. After IIanog been occupied so much, in tho toutse of i-tcent ciiticislD, with the h~ 1IIricIII. and philological grounds on which tho claims of the Peutateuch IUd ~. it ~.r be profitable! and serve to augment the fol'lle of .o~ con8id~ tndoas, ihfe tum our thoughts to tho intemal argument, which Dr.r.A.ubeH~ hu 10 ably unfolded in tho pages here laid before the reader. Digitized by LtOog Le

-'